Flying car one step closer to reality (yeah, sure)

See

http://us.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/06/30/...car/index.html

On Jul 1, 6:51*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
See

http://us.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/06/30/...car/index.html

The idea isn't new. It has been tried before ending up a novelty. The
result this time around in my opinion will garner the same result. The
world economical issues aside and even discounting the narrow
potential sales demographic for the product, there remains a single
issue that I haven't seen mentioned at all about this product. There
is a HUGE, and I mean a HUGE problem that goes along with the purchase
of a product like this one.

Assuming one buys this thing intending to use it as advertised; the
800 pound gorilla in the room will be the fact that no matter how you
cut down the intended use, it's still an aircraft, and the fact that
it's not only an aircraft, but will obviously be an object of instant
public curiosity means that ANYWHERE this thing gets "parked" outside
the security of an airport, the purchaser will either have to supply
on site security for the vehicle or take a HUGE chance that during the
owner's absence, something or someone hasn't compromised the vehicle
by some human interaction (touching, changing something, damaging
something on the vehicle) that could become a potential safety issue
the next time the vehicle is FLOWN.
I see this single factor as a down side so negative it will absolutely
have to become a strong consideration for any potential purchaser of
this product.
The bottom line is that used as advertized, unless security goes with
the vehicle everywhere it sits, the purchaser had better become the
world's most proficient expert in the subject of preflight inspection.
I believe once what I've written above is seriously considered by
potential buyers, this vehicle (and I like the concept and actually
like the design.....it's neat as hell really)
will see a very limited market and eventually fade from view into a
museum.
Dudley Henriques

On Jul 2, 3:06*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jul 1, 6:51*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

See

http://us.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/06/30/...car/index.html

The idea isn't new. It has been tried before ending up a novelty. The
result this time around in my opinion will garner the same result. The
world economical issues aside and even discounting the narrow
potential sales demographic for the product, there remains a single
issue that I haven't seen mentioned at all about this product. There
is a HUGE, and I mean a HUGE problem that goes along with the purchase
of a product like this one.

Assuming one buys this thing intending to use it as advertised; the
800 pound gorilla in the room will be the fact that no matter how you
cut down the intended use, it's still an aircraft, and the fact that
it's not only an aircraft, but will obviously be an object of instant
public curiosity means that ANYWHERE this thing gets "parked" outside
the security of an airport, the purchaser will either have to supply
on site security for the vehicle or take a HUGE chance that during the
owner's absence, something or someone hasn't compromised the vehicle
by some human interaction (touching, changing something, damaging
something on the vehicle) *that could become a potential safety issue
the next time the vehicle is FLOWN.
I see this single factor as a down side so negative it will absolutely
have to become a strong consideration for any potential purchaser of
this product.
The bottom line is that used as advertized, unless security goes with
the vehicle everywhere it sits, the purchaser had better become the
world's most proficient expert in the subject of preflight inspection.
I believe once what I've written above is seriously considered by
potential buyers, this vehicle (and I like the concept and actually
like the design.....it's neat as hell really)
will see a very limited market and eventually fade from view into a
museum.
Dudley Henriques

Did anyone else notice the extraordinary amount of up elevator being
used that that the pilot seems to be well forward of the wing? Seems
like a design problem to me...

Cheers

Flaps_50! writes:

Did anyone else notice the extraordinary amount of up elevator being
used that that the pilot seems to be well forward of the wing? Seems
like a design problem to me...

There are some comments on that in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHXnLCIgNug

On Jul 2, 4:13*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Flaps_50! writes:
Did anyone else notice the extraordinary amount of up elevator being
used that that the pilot seems to be well forward of the wing? Seems
like a design problem to me...

There are some comments on that in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHXnLCIgNug

I hope the pilot will be able to get out when he starts spin testing.
The canard is too small IMHO

Cheers

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

---------sorry about the complete snip, my reader isn't handling some quotes
correctly again--------

Dudley, I completely agree that it won't be usefull.

However, although you are absolutely right, my reasoning is a little
different. Molt Taylor's Aerocar, was marginally usefull at a time when
most people were familiar enough with machinery to mostly avoid inadvertant
damage and relatively few people even locked their doors--and the Aerocar
allowed most of the "airplane" portion to be left at the nearest airport.
Even then, the main reason the idea made sense was that so many local public
use airports were a simple grass field with little services and no rental
cars.

So, today, even if all of the security and licensing issues were resolved,
the market would still be limited to a percieved need to land at one airport
and depart from another.

In my view, general use credit cards and the easy availability of rental
cars killed the Aerocar and the potential market is even more limited today.

Peter

On Jul 1, 10:22*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

...

---------sorry about the complete snip, my reader isn't handling some quotes
correctly again--------

Dudley, I completely agree that it won't be usefull.

However, although you are absolutely right, my reasoning is a little
different. *Molt Taylor's Aerocar, was marginally usefull at a time when
most people were familiar enough with machinery to mostly avoid inadvertant
damage and relatively few people even locked their doors--and the Aerocar
allowed most of the "airplane" portion to be left at the nearest airport.
Even then, the main reason the idea made sense was that so many local public
use airports were a simple grass field with little services and no rental
cars.

So, today, even if all of the security and licensing issues were resolved,
the market would still be limited to a percieved need to land at one airport
and depart from another.

In my view, general use credit cards and the easy availability of rental
cars killed the Aerocar and the potential market is even more limited today.

Peter

Sounds reasonable to me Peter.
Strangely enough, I knew Bob Cummings for a short while. Great guy and
an avid fan of the old Aero-Car. He owned the thing for a while
actually. He loved it but saw the many problems associated with it as
we have noted in our 2 posts. Never did discover if he sold it. I'm
assuming he did eventually.
DH